Exponer las posibles incidencias de la segregación del corregimiento

and thus be the e quivalent

of

fcuc eline s . 1Vhere natural features

thAt were recorded by th _{line ��13J etl the} part of fencelines , this

was indicated.

Unless othtirwise statetl , it was t c· be asstuned from the record

that

tlw

furm d

land-use

was

grazing

._u unploughable pasture.

Therefc-re ,

whether

or .11ot

they were Hmrked by a fenceline , the boundar­ ies wo:;1re

recorded uf:

plot.li.hable land

(

that is , lc.tnd whi

c

h appeared

to h.avo b-:JQU plouc;hed at S u1He t .i.m ;

)

;

roads

or fanu tracks ; plantat­ ions , _{hom-: stt:acis, u.li...:i stock:yarus;} erosi

o

n feature s

(as

listed below

)

;

waterc:ourses ( ir.cluclir�

ditclws)

and stream be<is ; _{and stream} bank&

(which

vtere gi·uupeu >.vith

clifl's).

(

The vegetation was samp_led in

unploughable �'asture o 1ly. In t b..-· c ase of the ct.ht"r categories , aa with c li ffs _anG. imp�netrabltl Vq::,etation , a brief description of the

vegetation was noted tc a.m�lify the results uf the extensive examin­

ation

)

.

The n�1 ture of each active or unhealed erosi on fe ature was noted

(

e . g . slip,

slump,

mudflow, gu

l

ly

,

winci. erosi on, scre e

)

. Where

the

subsoil

was exposed , t

hi

s was named

(

to amplify the soil

r�oord ) .

Minor erosi

on i'e atures

(

those vccupying isolated dngltJ

feet )

were

not separ8ted out fran

unploughable pasture ,

:Jut

were treated as

miorohabit at feature s.

(See

be

l

ow)

.

Assessment

of

The principal

f�ctor

to be exam- ined urui.er t his headitlt"; waa th�C� relative inttmsity of graz:i.ng within

each tmi

t

�rea. _{In Lrder}

_to

_obtain some estim:xte of

t

his factor ,

a

reourd was 111aue o.::' tlw

.>resence of

�my dun;:; on each foot of line transect , anJ of

the

animal or aniJuals

involved.

(

For all prac-

tic al purposes , t his meant sheep and cattle

)

. Thi s technique was

suggested by th,� "pellet count " method used by Hew Zealan

d

wildlife inve.�stigators in e stimating J)opul tiuns.

(

Riney

(1956 : 462-64)

has

describc:td a

form of

pel let

count method used

in

195.3

during a survey t o _assess th� relative abundance of severa

l

spec ies of grazing and

L,

52

Cortain deficiencies are obvious in the dung-coWlt method

used

in

the pre

s

ent work . The _most seri ous lies in the attempt to class- ify unit _areas in terms

of

grazin_g int ensi ty by means of estimates based on _single nun-random s ampling _transects of varying length. Again , the corr_elati_on _between dunging _and grazing may be upset in

the case of :.;ha e p by the aninl[lls c .·ffii)in[ on the high ground at night

(

Guthr � e�Smi th

(1926 :

c h.Xx)).

_There is als o the problem of dung

decaying at dii'fe N nt 1·ates in uiffertJnt environml7nts. Further, while t he dung count for _{any unit} area wi ll , _presuma

b

ly, be relative­

ly c onst a Ht

thruu•)1

th�::�

y�a.r

w1 : a1· set stocking � it may not be so under rotational or s easonal grazing. (Actu�lly , both Gre enall _and Hamilton (unpub.:

60)

and Gib�un

(

unpub .

)

P�ve ointed out that set

stoc king _{i s} usual but not universal in th� areas that they covered

).

Another }:)Ossi:)

l

e fault wi tn t he c orre laticL is

t hz t

dif:t'erent breeds

t;f the s ame spocj_e s , _{or c1iffer;;;!nt} c ategories of' _tho same breed , _{me_y} differ

in

the effici ency _of uti l i zati on of .Lead. .J.'he importance of

this )O:.; :.;i bl a fault is

lessened

by t

h

.;; f'act t hat most of the sheep of the ar�a trallli ec ted are bre eding ewes

(

_mai_nly Ramnay), and that most

of

th� cattl<� are bet:>f cattle

(mainly

Aberdeen Angus).

It was asswned that a

l

l unit areas were grazed both by sheep

and

by c attle.

( In

practi c e , thi s _{is largely , but} not

inYariably, the

c ase

)

. _{On the} b aei � of the trans ect srunple , e ach unit area was then

cl assif ied as being subjected

tc 11 ._

ht or he avy sheep grazing and to light ur heavy c attle grazing . �heep grazing wa s

al'bitrarily

regard- ed as heavy if'

s

heep dung occurred in _more than

lafo

of the feet in

the s arr:ple , while cattle grazing was regarded as heavy if ca_ttle

dung

occurred in mure

th<m

2.5% of the'

fe e t

in the s amf le. In both oases 1

about 30;�

_{of the} samples

we�

_in

the

"heaVy _{grazing "} category, ( It was rec ognized that

t he peroenta�es

woula va

r

y in precision with

the lengths of the t ransects on which th�y were

basad,

_so that the

c lassif ic ati on would be a VtJry rouzh one

)

. The term "he avy grazing " i s rather relati ve , �articularly in the c ase of cattle . Sheep , at the overall rat e

of

._.ne t o two ewes per acre

:

plus young

st_uck

)

_{, are} the predominant grazing animal s , with one _cattle

beast

53

In document Impacto financiero a causa de la segregación Guachené – Caloto, departamento del Cauca [recurso electrónico] (página 36-55)